Bloggings: August 2, 2007

July 31, 2007

I.M. Pei, was born in Canton, China
in 1917, immigrated to the US
at age 17 and became a naturalized US citizen since in 1954. He is,
quite simply, one of the most highly regarded architects on the planet. His
projects are considered works of art in and of themselves.

I've been an architecture buff for many years ever since I
worked as an architectural surveyor for the Metropolitan Historical Commission
in Nashville
between my college and law school years. So I've been a long admirer of Mr.Pei. Some of my favorite works
include the Bank of China
Tower, the
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and, of course, theLouvre
Pyramid.

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the
Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee who has quickly gained a reputation
for holding USCIS' feet to the fire to deliver good service to its customers,
has taken on the USCIS over the fee increase that went in to effect yesterday
by introducing legislation to force USCIS to reverse course. Lofgren issued the
following press release in connection with the bill:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) today
introduced a bill to void the recent increases in immigration fees by U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The bill would void the new fee
structure set to take effect today and reinstate the previous fee structure.
The bill also states that USCIS has consistently failed to reduce application
backlogs and has suffered from a lack of transparency and effective management.

“Our immigration services need to move into the 21st
century,” stated Rep. Zoe Lofgren. “But,
USCIS has consistently failed to explain or justify the amounts and
distributions of this new fee increase. While I agree that USCIS needs to modernize
its existing infrastructure and procedures, they must do so in a transparent
and open manner. After repeated requests over several months, USCIS has yet to
provide Congress with a detailed plan for its infrastructure modernization
efforts. Our immigration system should be both effective and fair; sacrificing
one to achieve the other should not be an option.”

Yesterday I advised you that AILA was reporting that USCIS was
mistaken in saying that the only acceptable versions of the I-765, I-129F and
I-290B were the July 30th versions now on the USCIS web site. But the forms on
the site are still marked as the only acceptable versions and no correction
statement has been issued by USCIS. Until we see that, I would advise folks to
only use the new version.

I had never heard of Ms. Bergmann
until I recently saw a fascinating documentary
on her on HBO. Ms. Bergmann, who is now in her 90s, was a leading athlete in Germany set to take a medal at the 1936 Olympics
in Berlin.
While the Germans were facing world criticism for their treatment of Jewish
athletes, they chose Bergmann as the only Jewish member of the team (Helene
Mayer, another team members whose deceased father was
Jewish, was raised in her mother's Christian faith). And then she was kicked
off the team at the last moment along with her fellow Jewish teammate.

The film interview Ms. Bergmann at length and one can tell those
years of training have benefited her - she looked at 20 years younger than her
years and her memory of that remarkable time in her life was impeccable.

Bergmann managed to emigrate to the US in 1937 and
avoided the horrors that were to befall her people in the years to follow.
Because the Olympics were canceled in 1940 and 1944 because of the war, Ms.
Bergmann never had the opportunity to win her gold medal, though she has the
satisfaction of at least knowing that the height of the high jump that was
enough to win the gold medal in Berlin was the same as she achieved in
competition just a month before the Games.

Bergmann did have a chance to compete in her adopted country.
She was the 1937 American high jump and shot put champion and repeated the high
jump championship in 1938. She became an American citizen in 1942.

In a nice epilogue to her story, she was honored by the the German people in 1999 with the naming of a stadium
after her. The stadium was one that she was not allowed to keep in (or even
enter) when she was living in Germany.
She returned to the Germany
for the first time since fleeing in the 30s to attend the dedication ceremony.

Immigration Voice,
the grassroots immigrants rights organization, plans
on holding a major rally in Washington
on September 13th. The rally will focus on the antiquated employment green card
system in the US
and the need for legislation to address the situation.

Immigration Voice wants to do something as consequential as the
flower campaign and the San Jose
rally but only this time, it will be much bigger and much more consequential
aimed at congressional action on visa backlogs and broken system of high-skills
immigration. We aim to resolve this issue but we cannot do it alone and
therefore it is imperative for every one, and by that we mean EVERY ONE to show
up. If you wanted to be a part of San
Jose rally but couldn't, then now is your chance to
protest peacefully and fight for a fair system and just process.

Always remember, we are in United States at
the invitation of our employers and our employers have filed our green card
petitions in order to retain us. It is only fair and only just to ask for a
system that achieves that objective without delays and without putting the
immigrants in probationary limbo for 6-12 years. And it is your obligation to
yourself and your family to stand up for your rights and ask congress to
legislate and fix the system so that it works the way it was originally
intended to work. Just ask a participant of San Jose rally of how proud and how
satisfied everyone was after the rally – not just due to impact –
but just because they have stood up and spoken up for their issue.

Immigration Voice will shortly announce the route, times and
other details. You can find out more at :

The Flower Campaign and San Jose Rally were a great start. But
IV has the ambitious goal of attracting 10,000 participants, a number that
would make it probably the largest rally ever staged on behalf of
employment-based immigration. Make it happen!

In the last few months, the term "anchor baby" has
taken on a certain cache with anti-immigrant folks like Ms. Michele
Malkin and Mr. Lou Dobbs.
The term refers to the children of immigrants who are conferred citizenship by
virtue of their birth in this country. Some would limit the use to the children
of illegal aliens, while many extend it to children of those on work and
tourist visas. Others argue that anyone
born in the US
to parents on work, student, tourist visas, etc. would be an "anchor
baby".

I think it's fair to call it like it is - calling someone an
"anchor baby" is a form of hate speech. The term is used in an effort
to dehumanize a whole class of American citizens. By stigmatizing the American
children of immigrants, these bigots seek to turn millions of Americans in to
second class citizens. There have been many other societies in the past which
tried to de-legitimized the children of immigrants. I
know because I've filed asylum cases for people with horrific stories involving
their membership in a persecuted group of this sort.

America has always had better
instincts. Immigrants have succeeded in this country more than any other
because we focus as a country on welcoming immigrants and making them in to new
Americans, not just barely tolerated foreigners. Their
children are not second class citizens and just as American as the children of
those who trace their roots to Plymouth Rock.

Because I believe the term is offensive and demeaning, I intend
to delete posts that use it in a derogatory way). If people want to discuss the
term itself and how it is being used in hate speech, I'd consider that to be
appropriate. Some of the anti-immigrant folks out there are no doubt going to
accuse me of being a censor. And so be it. They can use the term on your own blogs (and don't seem to have any hesitancy to do so, of
course).

I've written an opinion piece on the contributions of foreign
doctors to the US
health care system that I'm told will be in tomorrow's USA Today. It's not easy
to pare 1800 words down to 1000, but I think I still managed to get my point
across. As soon as it's online, I'll link to it.

I've read some news accounts of this happening, but I heard for
myself a story from a new client that seems to confirm that CBP officers are
indeed searching the web to see if they can find information to ensnare people
seeking entry to the US.
The person I spoke to today was denied entry because he had a web site for a
small business set up. The client indicated that the business never actually
got to the point of being operational and the web site was created a few years
ago when the person was a student (he was just seeking entry as a tourist on
this trip), but that was enough to convince the officer to put the client back
on a plane home.

There was highly publicized case recently where a Canadian
professor was held to be a habitual drug user based on an admission in an
interview that he experimented with LSD in the 1960s.

So if you're thinking of putting anything on your MySpace or Facebook page or
something on your web site that you don't want to have to explain to a border
officer, you might want to exercise some restraint.

The Senate has rejected an amendment to last week's DHS
appropriations bill that would have provided funding for the implementation of
the Real ID Act. This comes after the open revolt of a number of states who
have said they will not implement the mandated changes. How will the government
proceed with forcing REAL ID-compliant licenses to be used without any money on
their end and with states that are thumbing their noses at the federal
government?

USCIS has informed the American Immigration Lawyers Association
that the three forms listed on the web site as requiring the new version as of
today IS A MISTAKE and that the earlier version can still be used. Of course,
they have not considered this important enough to correct the problem on their
web site. Mistakes like this can create panic for those who have sent the old
version of the form and when they are discovered, they need to be corrected
immediately and a notice to be issued informing the public of the error.

Does it seem like there is something like this coming out almost
every day? My friend Dan Kowalski, the esteemed editor of the excellent Bender's
Immigration Bulletin, just sent me a note from Robert Gard, a lawyer with the Azulay
firm in Chicago (of Visa Bulletin litigation fame), noting that USCIS posted
three new forms today on their web site and is mandating that only the new
versions of those forms can be used. USCIS normally allows a previous version
of a form to be used for a phase in period while immigration forms case management
system can code for the new version and send their subscribers the necessary
upgrades. And many people download a form, work on it for a bit and then send
it in so at least a reasonable period of time is needed for an old version of a
form to be used.

The new forms are the I-765 for employment authorization
requests, the I-129F for fiance visas and the I-290B
Notice of Appeal. The I-765 is the one of greatest
concern right now. Hundreds of thousands of those forms are being filed in
conjunction with adjustment applications being filed pursuant to the July Visa
Bulletin.

The cynic in me says that USCIS made this little change for the
sole purpose of punishing people taking advantage of the July Visa Bulletin. I
hope I'm wrong, but USCIS owes an explanation and also needs to immediately
instruct the service centers to continue accepting the form for a reasonable
period of time as has been their long standing practice. In fact, they posted a
number of other additional forms today and said that previous versions were
acceptable.

For many of you who use case management systems, you should note
that USCIS posts their forms in fillable acrobat
format so you can type on the screen and print the form off without the need to
scan or use a typewriter. Until USCIS reverses itself, you need to use the new
version available at the USCIS site and wait on your forms management software
company to send you an update.

[UPDATE: A reader made the good suggestion to put a link to the
correct forms. They're all at USCIS, but the one most of you care about right
now - the I-765 - is at http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765.pdf]

[UPDATE
2: Someone in my office said that the barcode in the new form may not show up
properly in versions of Acrobat Reader earlier than version 8, the latest
version. To be safe, I would recommend download Adobe's latest free
version of the Acrobat reader software.]

I'm a Tennessean and remember presidential candidate Fred
Thompson's years as my US
Senator. I remember him as being a relative moderate non-"crazy" on a
variety of issue. This is really in the long tradition of the
Tennessee Republican Party and have included moderates like Howard Baker
(Thompson's mentor) and Lamar Alexander.

I also remember Thompson being a realist on immigration matters
as opposed to a zealot and willing to try and work for sensible solutions to
both legal and illegal immigration problems.

When Thompson's name started getting tossed around as a
Presidential candidate, he was immediately touted as the darling of the conservative
wing of the GOP. And this really puzzled me because that's not how I remembered
Thompson as well, particularly when it came to immigration issues.

Thompson seems to be more than happy to accept the label of
right winger including being far to the edge on immigration issues. He's just
weighed in on Hazleton
and has taken
a tough line on any sort of "amnesty".

But I remember a more reasonable, consensus-minded Fred
Thompson. For those who have worked on immigration issues for many years, you
may remember the "split the bill" campaign in 1996 that involved
taking out the most onerous anti-immigration provisions from the 1996
immigration act and also removing the legal immigration provisions (including a
moratorium on legal immigration) from the bill. Thompson was on the Judiciary
Committee at the time and cast the critical pro-immigration vote in favor of
splitting the bill. A lot of people in the pro-immigration community breathed a
big sigh of relief thanks to Senator Thompson.

Apparently, others are worried about Thompson's anti-immigration
street cred as well. Check out this posting today
from FAIR's Dan Stein. Stein is railing against
Thompson for choosing former Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, a Republican and
Energy Secretary in George W. Bush's first term, to be a co-manager of his
national campaign for President. It is true that Senator Abraham was
pro-immigration and I don't think he would make any bones about that. And it is
true that Thompson has a pro-immigration record. He voted pro-immigration on
various bills like increasing H-1B numbers and visas available to farm workers.

Maybe Senator Thompson has undergone a transformation. Or maybe
he is simply choosing to emphasize aspects of his immigration positions that
seem the toughest. In any case, I think it's fair to say that Thompson is no
Tom Tancredo. And if FAIR hates Thompson, then I think that probably is an
indicator that he's not so extreme on the immigration issue after all. Which is
what I believed before all of this presidential campaign business began.

A few days back, I posted criticism
of a USCIS policy announcement that it was ending accepting prepaid mailers.
Applicants who wanted to get their receipts by overnight mail have for a long
time been allowed to include an envelope with a prepaid mailing label. Then USCIS
announced they were going to stop allowing this because they didn't want to be
bothered anymore with the extra burden of having to accommodate these requests.

WASHINGTON USCIS is retracting its recent “USCIS
Update” regarding the discontinuance of “prepaid mailers” for
issuing notices and documents, dated July 23, 2007. Prior to the July 23rd
announcement, USCIS allowed the public to enclose “prepaid mailers”
in connection with applications or petitions filed with USCIS. A prepaid mailer
is essentially a self-addressed envelope, where postage is paid by the addressee, that USCIS may use for mailing a document to the
petitioner/applicant or their authorized representative. USCIS is aware that
the July 23rd announcement caused anxiety for several of its customers and
USCIS is committed to finding an alternative that will allow the public the
continued convenience of using “prepaid mailers” while not unduly
impacting its operations. Thus, USCIS is reinstating the practice of utilizing
prepaid mailers as an alternate method of delivering notices and documents to
the public.

USCIS reminds the public that prepaid
mailers are not required. If an applicant/petitioner nonetheless wishes to
submit one, it should meet the following criteria: Express and Priority mail
(including Fed Ex, DHL, or UPS) with appropriate postage with prepaid shipping
label on the package, already paid by person who sends it, e.g., Fed Ex
“Expanded Billable Stamp”, or DHL “Easy Return Label”,
among others.

Are you starting to see a pattern? When the public makes a lot
of noise expressing outrage at unfair behavior at USCIS, the agency DOES
respond. They've really never had to address this sort of thing before since
grassroots complaining - backed up with the credible threat of litigation where
appropriate - has not been a factor.

July 29, 2007

Michael
J. Fox, the Canadian actor famous for roles in films like Back to the Future and for television
shows like Spin City and Family Ties, has become just as well
known in recent years in the role of activist. Fox, who has Parkinson's Disease, has campaigned for research money for the disease
and weighed in very public on the need for stem cell research. Fox's foundation
has raised nearly $100,000,000 for research to treat and cure Parkinson's. When
we read daily headlines about Hollywood
actors' misbehaving, here's someone who has used his notoriety for the public
good. Hopefully, we'll see a true cure for this terrible disease in the near
future.

I've been blogging of late about the
backdoor efforts to get in to law Title III of the comprehensive immigration
reform bill recently ditched by the Senate. Title III would have requiree all employers in the country to use the Basic
Pilot program, an electronic employment verification system.

Recently, state laws have started
to pass requiring employers to use Basic Pilot and now provisions are being
added to federal budget bills requiring federal contractors to use the system.
I've stated my concerns about a lack of funding to properly handle the addition
of all these new users. The concern is not whether the electronic system can
handle the users, but how "false positives" are managed when human
beings have to actually resolve problems.

I did get a look this weekend at the handwritten text of a
provision added to the HHS funding bill by voice vote. It will provide
$60,000,000 additional funding for Basic Pilot for this year. Whether that's enough to handle the additional demand remains to be
seen.

No surprise here, but there are few American government agencies
that have the prestige of the NSF. The report
does a nice job laying out the advantages and disadvantages to exporting and
importing skilled professional workers. The report wisely concludes that there
are always losers in a free trade environment, but that it is not a zero sum
game. This is why it is so important to have immigration factor into global
trade agreements. They've also included an interesting profile
on foreign engineers and scientists in the US. Here is the section from the
report on the impact on the global economy:

In addition to any benefits or costs that might be viewed as
accruing to particular countries that send or receive highly skilled migrants,
there are global effects that cannot be assigned to individual countries. These
are essentially all the effects that could result in greater global efficiency
in the production of knowledge and of goods and services. Even if one rejects
the idea that one country benefits from wealth and knowledge creation in
another, this greater efficiency would result in a larger global sum of gross
domestic product, however distributed. A better international flow of knowledge
may increase the efficiency of new knowledge production globally because it
leads to better solutions to particular problems and reduces duplication in
R&D.

An international job market has important
implications for the quality of job matches for both workers and employers. In
a world where increased specialization leads to increased employer dependence
on scarce or unique skill sets, the reasons employers find it increasingly
efficient to search across borders are clear. Not only might an individual with
a particular combination of skill and experience be hard to find, but the
difference between the best and the second best job match may be large. At thesame time, greater employment options
resulting from a global labor market may allow workers to find the work most
interesting to them.

There may also be a global benefit from the
formation of international research and technology centers. Researchers
studying innovation have long noted the apparent benefits of geographic
clustering of particular research activities. To a great extent, this
clustering of specialized research required international migration of highly
skilled workers for staffing.For all of these reasons, international
high-skill migration is likely to have a positive effect on global incentives
for human capital investment. It increases the opportunities for highly skilled
workers both by providing the option to search for a job across borders and by
encouraging the growth of new knowledge.

Cuban-American
Congressman Diaz-Balart, a Republican, has represented his Miami, Florida
district since 1993. Diaz-Balart has become known as one of the most
pro-immigration Republicans in Congress and has championed such issues as the
DREAM Act and Temporary Protected Status eligibility for Haitians. The Havana native was also
the primary sponsor of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief
Act of 1997 (NACARA), one of the more important immigration bills enacted in
the 1990s.

July 28, 2007

One of my first clients when I left a large law firm and became
a solo immigration lawyer was Mike Cronin, a British national who had been sent
to Nashville to work on a project to build one
of the largest recording studios in the MusicCity.
Years have passed and my firm has now grown to one of the largest in the
country. And Mike remains a good friend.

Mike was originally sent to Nashville by his protégé, the
legendary Tom Hidley. Mike ended up staying in Nashville and over the ensuing years has become one of the
world's top recording studio designers working on projects in Africa, Europe, Asia and across America. There's a good chance the
soundtrack for a movie you've seen has been recorded in a studio on which Mike
worked and you very well may have heard music recorded in a Cronin-designed
studio.

Google "Michael Cronin Acoustic Construction" and
you'll see links to many of the projects Mike's handled.

July 27, 2007

Applicants who filed adjustments between July 2nd and July 17th
do not need to have a receipt in order to file for advanced parole or
employment authorization if they provide proof of delivery of the I-485
application.

Applications received between July 2nd and July 17th will
receive receipt dates based on the day the applications were physically
received.

Medical exams completed abroad by State Department-approved
doctors may be submitted in lieu of medical exams conducted by USCIS-approved doctors.

E-Filed I-140s received on July 31st will receive a July 31st
priority date even if the supporting documents arrive at a late date (there's a
seven day limit).

A receipt notice from a courier service (like Fedex) will constitute a "post-mark" for fee
determination purposes.

Individuals who fell out of valid nonimmigration
status between July 2nd and July 16th as a direct result of the inability to
file for employment-based adjustment during that time will likely be forgiven
for the short gap in status based on USCIS' discretion to consider
extraordinary circumstances beyond the alien's control.

Applications must be properly signed (i.e. representatives
cannot file applications at the last minute without the client's signature)

Family members MUST file adjustment applications before the
August 17th deadline or wait until visa numbers become available again
(presumably many years later in certain categories).

There are some other items covered such as substitution cases
that I'm not describing here, but are worth reviewing if you're in that
category.

July 26, 2007

FareedZakaria is an Indian-American
who is now one of the most recognizable foreign policy analysts in the United States.
He writes a very popular column in Newsweek
(one I regularly read)
and is a regular on ABC News' This Week
with George Stefanopoulus. His mother was
a famous journalist in her own right serving as the Sunday editor of the Times of India.

I am getting reports from readers that Visa Bulletin adjustment
cases are being rejected for a variety of reasons that sound like USCIS mail
room workers have been instructed to take an extremely restrictive view
of what is a proper application. We had a case in our own office today where a
case was returned stating that we failed to include an original labor
certification approval notice. The problem was we did include the notice. While
we have time to resubmit and politely request that the mail room clerk do his
or her job properly, one gets the feeling that there will be lawsuits galore.
Why doesn't USCIS get it? Getting sued for something that anyone with common
sense knows will result in a loss for the agency does NOT serve the taxpayers'
interests.

Anti-immigrant groups received a major setback today as a US DIstrict Court judge in Pennsylvania
ruled in a 206 page decision that Hazleton, PA's
anti-immigration ordinances unconstitutional. The case dealt with ordinances
that bar landlords from renting apartments to illegal aliens and a provision
that allow for the revocation of business licenses of companies employing
illegal aliens. The latter issue is particularly important since numerous state
and local laws have passed in recent months that do this very thing.

The City of Hazleton
really got slammed on this one based on the tone of the decision and the case
provides a blueprint for challenging ordinances all over the country. No doubt
the case will be appealed and given the propagation of these statutes all over
the country, the Supreme Court could very well take up
the issue.

There were many grounds for overturning the decision, but the
most telling one was the Constitutional bar on states preempting federal laws.

United StatesThis argument appears to be a species of argument often heard in recent
discussions of the national immigration issue: because illegal aliens broke the
law to enter this country, they should not have any legal recourse when rights
due them under the federal constitution or federal law are violated. We cannot
say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal
authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this
single illegal act. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides
that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.” The United
States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this
provision to apply to all people present in the United States whether they were
born here, immigrated here through legal means, or violated federal law to
enter the country.

***

IRCA contains an express pre-emption clause
that pre-empts State or local laws dealing with the employment of unauthorized
aliens. The preemption clause provides: “The provisions of this section
preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than
through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer
for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).

***

Under federal law
there are two types of immigration enforcement: border enforcement, which is
keeping unauthorized persons from entering the country; and interior
enforcement, which is distinguishing between legal and undocumented immigrants
already in the country and removing the latter. (N.T. 3/15/07
at 14). In interior enforcement, officials must strike a balance between
finding and removing undocumented immigrants without accidently
removing immigrants and legal citizens, all without imposing too much of a
burden on employers and workers. Too stringent of an enforcement system will
result in the wrongful removal of United States citizens and legal immigrants.United States foreign relations is affected by
the manner in which the balance is struck. Excessive enforcement jeopardizes
our alliances and cooperation with regard to matters such as immigration
enforcement, drug interdiction and counter terrorism investigations.
Accordingly, the United States
political system places the responsibility for striking this balance with the United States
Congress and the executive branch. In discussing the ordinances in the instant
case, city council and the mayor did not consider the implications of the
ordinances on foreign policy. (N.T. 3/14/07 at 87-89). Their only concern, as
might be expected, was for Hazleton.

The employment provisions of IIRA differ from
and conflict with IRCA. It is thus in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution.

***

As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun
noted: “[T]he structure of the immigration statuses makes it impossible
for the State to determine which aliens are entitled to residence, and which
eventually will be deported.” Plyler (Blackmun, J., concurring). Additionally, Supreme Court
Justice Lewis F. Powell stated: “Until an undocumented alien is ordered
deported by the Federal Government, no State can be assured that the alien will
not be found to have a federal permission to reside in the country.” Plyler, 457 at 241 n.6 (Powell, J., concurring).

***

IIRA attempts to provide procedural protection
to those affected by it by resorting to courts that do not have jurisdiction
over determinations of immigration status. To refer those affected by IIRA to a
court that cannot hear their claim is a violation of due process. For the above
reasons, we find that IIRA violates the due process rights of both the
employers and employees and is thus unconstitutional.

***

Because the IIRA does not provide notice to
challenged employees or tenants, does not inform the employers and owners/landlords
of the types of identity information needed, and provides for judicial review
in a court system that lacks jurisdiction, it violates the due process rights
of employers, employees, tenants and owners/landlords. It is therefore
unconstitutional.

***

We therefore find that Ordinance 2006-18, as
amended, does not on its face violate the plaintiffs’ right to the equal
protection of the laws.

***

We find that we lack adequate information to
balance the plaintiffs’ privacy interest in the data requested with the
City’s need for that information. Neither party has
presented sufficient evidence of what type of information will be required from
plaintiffs, and plaintiffs have not adduced case law that would allow us
to conclude that immigration information is on its face private data. We will
therefore dismiss the plaintiffs’ privacy rights complaint.

***

Accordingly, section 1981 forbids the
defendant from prohibiting undocumented aliens from entering into leases. Thus,
the Tenant Registration Ordinance and the housing provisions of the IIRA, which
forbid such contracts, are in violation of section 1981

***

Whatever frustrations officials of the City of
Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement,
the nature of the political system in the United States, in its zeal to control
the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people,
as well as others within the community. Since the United States Constitution protects
even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced. prohibits
the City from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal
statutory scheme. Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton’s
measures, the City could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution
guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not.
The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who
evoke the least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this
nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws.

Thanks to an alert reader for sending this link.
The bill seems likely to be a turnoff to Democrats who will not be happy about
the treatment of illegal aliens. I have a feeling this one will be dead on
arrival, but we'll have to see.

Someone apparently got the message at USCIS that shutting down
e-filing for routine maintenance tomorrow was an incredibly bad idea so they've
pushed it back until Tuesday. However, our office has been having problems all
day getting in to the e-filing system and it seems to be completely
overwhelmed. We're hoping that the system gets better after business hours.

IN the mean time, USCIS made this disturbing announcement this
evening:

Special Note:

On Monday, July 23, USCIS inadvertently posted on its website a
version of Form I-485 that reflected the fee increase which does not take
effect until July 30, 2007. USCIS has now posted the correct version of the
Form I-485. We regret any confusion this may have caused.

But how exactly will USCIS treat cases filed by people who
followed the instructions and sent in the wrong fee. Are they going to reject
the cases (as they normally do since in 2007 they are still unable to make
change when one overpays accidentally). Given that the mistake is the USCIS'
you would expect the agency to accept responsibility and ensure cases are
properly adjudicated. But I wouldn't bet the farm.

This is one of the most outrageous examples of bad customer
service - and a complete breach of good faith - that I've seen in quite some
time at USCIS. Here is an announcement just posted at the USCIS
web site:

Scheduled E-Filing System Outage

The e-Filing System will be temporarily unavailable on Friday,
July 27, 2007 from 3:00 PM EDT until 11:00 PM EDT for necessary maintenance.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

People are scrambling to file e-file I-140 cases before the end
of the month in order to get July priority dates, something necessary to be
able to file an adjustment case in August. Also, the I-140 fees increase
substantially.

Funny, when USCIS announced which fees would be going up, the
I-485, I-765, and I-131 were to stay the same until August 17th, BUT NOT THE I-140. I thought that was odd, but now it's starting to
make sense. Is USCIS forcing people to file after the fees go up (and in the
process harming people who are needing to e-file
tomorrow? It certainly looks that way.

Scheduled maintenance? How hard is it to tell the IT guys to
hold of a few days?

I haven't seen the language, but apparently the bill is
enforcement-only though some of the most onerous provisions (such as mandatory
detention of overstays and police questioning of immigrants) seem to have been
modified to satisfy worried Democrats. The Associated Press reports here.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has offered an amendment to the
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that would allocate 61,000
green cards unused in prior years to Schedule A nurses
and physical therapists. The vast majority of these green cards are likely to
go to nurses who will face new hurdles because they lack a non-immigrant visa
category and have not been able to take advantage of adjusting status via the
July Visa Bulletin. The flood of applications filed pursuant to that bulletin
will likely send the EB-3 category back several additional years. Schumer's
amendment (S.AMDT.2448) will likely be voted on today.

I am urging readers to support this provision. Without it, nurses
face several extra years of waiting. The Visa Bulletin fiasco was great news
for many, but it is terrible news for many nurses. Even those in the US interested
in applying to adjust status found that they were locked out because of the
built in hold time in the posting process which meant that it is impossible to
obtain a July priority date. A long term solution will be to exempt nurses from
the green card cap since the nurse shortage in the US is expected to last for several
decades, but this will help until we get that legislative relief.

Please call, fax and email your Senators and urge them to
support 2448, the Schumer nursing amendment to the DHS appropriations bill. You
can find your Senator's contact details at http://www.senate.gov.

July 25, 2007

Pierre
Omidyar was born a week before me in Paris to Iranian parents and immigrated to the United States
at age 6. He founded eBay in 1995 and if you don't know all about eBay, then
chances are someone had to print out this blog post for you because you're the last person in America who
hasn't started using that new-fangled thing called the Internet.

Omidyar has become one of the richest
people on the planet and is also a major philanthropist. Omidyar was lucky enough to have had parents who legally
immigrated. Would he have had the same good fortune if his parents were no
legal? How many future Pierre Omidyars are we losing
by not passing the DREAM Act?

This is one of the most common arguments expressed by the
anti-immigration. But the Newark Star-Ledger's Brian Donohue calls this
"utter hogwash" and reminds
readers that for hundreds of years in the US there were NO
immigration laws to break unless you were a criminal, insane or, after 1882,
Chinese.

Only 1% of people were turned away at Ellis Island (the place at
which one in two Americans claims ancestry) and immigrants could come without
jobs or family in the US.
There were no restrictions on the number of immigrants permitted per year.

My favorite quote from the article:

Crediting yesteryear's immigrants with following the laws is
like calling someone a good driver because they never got caught speeding on
the Autobahn.

The Senate voted 52-44
not to consider the Graham Amendment on grounds that it was not germane. Because
of that vote, the Reid side-by-side amendment also went down. The Democrats
held firm with all voting against Graham. They were joined by two Republicans -
Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), one of the Republican's chief
architects of this summer's comprehensive immigration reform bill, will
introduce an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations
bill much of Title I and II of the CIR bill. Those sections cover border and
interior enforcement. The measure is being opposed by immigration advocacy
organizations like AILA.

According to a press release from Graham's office, the measure
would do the following:

· A
permanent end to the “catch-and-release” policy with 45,000 detention
beds.

In addition, the Act contains additional
border and interior enforcement provisions necessary for stemming the tide of
illegal immigration, restricting immigration benefits to lawbreakers, and
further protecting the homeland from terrorists and criminals. Among
other things, the Act does the following:

·
Increased Personnel: Requires a total of 14,500 new Customs & Border Patrol
(CBP) agents through Fiscal Year 2012 – to approximately 30,000 CBP
agents overall – as well as increased hires of new Immigration &
Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

·
Sanctuary Cities: Prohibits cities from banning the obtaining of information on
immigration status by their own law enforcement agencies.

·
Criminal Aliens: Strengthens laws to deny immigration benefits to aggravated
felons, gang members, terrorists, sex offenders, and child abusers. The
bill also expands the Institutional Removal Program and gives DHS the ability
to detain criminal aliens for an extended period of time before they can be
removed.

·
State and Local Law Enforcement: Gives state and local law enforcement
new authorities to detain illegal aliens and transfer them into DHS
custody. Moreover, it allows state and local law enforcement authorities
to use homeland security grants for 287(g) training and provides funding to
cover the costs of detaining and transporting criminal aliens.

·
Visa Overstayers: Requires DHS to detain aliens who
willfully overstay their period of authorized admission for more than 60 days.

·
Expedited Removal: Restricts the impact of outdated court injunctions
that currently prevent DHS from certain illegal immigrants into expedited
removal and returning them to their country of origin as soon as circumstances
allow.

·
US-VISIT and Entry Inspection: Clarifies DHS’s
authority to collect biometric entry and exit data at U.S. ports of entry, as
well as requires the Department to provide Congress a timeline for implementing
US-VISIT at all land border points of entry.

·
Employment Eligibility Verification: Requires DHS to enhance the Basic Pilot
Program to help facilitate broader use by employers as well as improved accuracy
and efficiency.

AILA is opposing the measure for a variety of reasons including
the expansion of state and local enforcement of immigration laws, the
subjecting visa overstayers to mandatory jailing and
the penalization of cities that doe not choose to turn their police officers in
to immigration agents.

According to AILA, Senator Reid will offer a side-by-side
amendment that would pair the Graham bill up with the AgJobs
and DREAM Act bills that would help those who entered illegally as children as
well as certain agricultural workers who are out of status.

I am urging readers to support the side-by-side amendment
and encourage you to call your Senators to offer support. While the enforcement
bill has problems, the odds of an enforcement bill passing are good and we can
work to make positive changes before it gets to the President's desk. And AgJobs and the Dream Act would help an enormous number of
people.

The
Washington Post reports that a law that went in to effect a year ago
to make it impossible for illegal aliens to qualify for Medicaid has had
virtually no impact on Medicaid enrollment. Why? Because
illegal immigrants do NOT come here for the public benefits. They come
to work. Contrary to what groups like FAIR or NumbersUSA
say, people don't risk their lives crossing deserts or being smuggled in
container holds on 18-wheeler trucks just so they can get public benefits in
the US.

About The Author

Greg Siskind, Esq. is a partner in Siskind Susser's Memphis, Tennessee, office. After graduating magna cum laude from Vanderbilt University, he received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago. Mr. Siskind is a member of AILA, a board member of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and a member of the ABA, where he serves on the LPM Publishing Board as Marketing Vice Chairman. He is the author of several books, including the J Visa Guidebook and The Lawyer's Guide to Marketing on the Internet. Mr. Siskind practices all areas of immigration law, specializing in immigration matters of the health care and technology industries. He can be reached by email at gsiskind@visalaw.com.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.